24fandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Season 1
Pacific Standard Time or Pacific Daylight Time? Can someone clarify whether Day 1 takes place during PST or PDT. From the first episode ("Midnight-1:00 A.M.") we see that there is a 16 hour difference between Los Angeles and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, meaning that it is in PST (during PDT there is a 17 hour difference). However, later in the season, we see the sunset at 7:15, which would only happen during PDT. At first I thought Day 1 could take place during the transition between regular time and daylight time, but I don't think that is the case (transition occurs on a Sunday, and this season is set on a Super Tuesday). Does anyone have a way to explain this discrepancy? (RangerSmith 13:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)) : Two words: It's fiction. Seriously, with all of the flaws and inconsistencies that go into a show like 24, how can daylight discrepancies be such a priority? But if you want my opinion, since Super Tuesday occurs before PDT starts, it must be PST. --proudhug 01:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC) :: It takes place on Super Tuesday (probably 2000) so March 8, 2000. Daylight Saving Time did not occur at all in Malaysia in 2000. In most locations in the US, it started on April 2nd. (See timeanddate.com/time/dst/2000.html .) Eschiss1 (talk) 00:45, July 1, 2013 (UTC) Opening Image Aw, and I was glad someone finally changed the main image for episode one from that boring and pointless title card. What the heck was the reasoning for keeping that as the main image again? --Proudhug 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC) :Click here. I mean, if it's that big a deal, we can change it I guess, but I thought that 4 or 5 of us agreed that we'd keep it on just that one article... otherwise, it's nowhere on the site. -Kapoli 21:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) I'd forgotten about that discussion. I guess it's not really a big deal, but I think it's a really odd and uninteresting thing to put as the main image. If people feel it's important enough that it be on the site somewhere, why not put it at the beginning of the summary for that episode instead? I don't think it's that iconic that it warrents being the episode's main image. --Proudhug 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC) :I think it's important enough to be the main image for that episode. It's the title page of every episode. It needs to be on the site somewhere, and since it was the very first thing we saw when the series debuted, what better place than the beginning of the beginning of the episode guides? :And when Willo asked for opinions on the Talk:Day 5 4:00am-5:00am page, I gathered that you thought the episode guide main images should match/correspond with the episode tables on the Season pages. When I went through and changed the sidebars for Seasons 1-4, I made sure the main images matched the episode tables. I haven't gone through Season 5 yet, so I'm sure there are some mismatches and old sidebars, but I thought the idea was to make them all match for consistency. We can't have the title screen be the main image on the episode guide, but not use it in the Season page episode table. And it would be weird to have it in the body of just one episode guide. I think we'd need it in all of them - for consistency. -Kapoli 23:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC) But it's already the main image for just one episode. If you ask me, that's weirder than having it in the body of just one. All of the pictures in the main bodies are different for each episode anyway, obviously. For sure the Season page image should be the same main image. I'm not disputing that, rather that it should be an image, not a title card... the text of which appears at the beginning of the episode summary anyway. And, just to be nit-picky... the very first thing we saw when the series debuted was the "24" logo, not the text. ;-) Either way, I don't see how putting it at the beginning of the summary instead of the first main image is worse. If we do elect to keep the image, in whatever form, could someone at least crop it so there's not as much black space? You shouldn't have to click on the image or squint your eyes to have to read it. Even though everyone knows what it says anyway. --Proudhug 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Dan in the "first act antagonists" Today an edit by SuperbowserX which inserted Dan Mounts in the "first act antagonists" list was reverted in good faith by another user because Dan is "scarcely more than a hired thug". Although this statement is true, dramatically Dan was quite important to the first quarter of the season. He was the driving force behind the scenes with Rick, the kidnappings, and the danger which the girls faced, and had tons of screen time. So, while he was indeed very low on the totem pole, his dramatic importance in my opinion qualifies him for the inclusion there. Any disagree? 20:56, September 21, 2015 (UTC)